Explore the Gujarat High Court’s decision on Anant Jignesh Shah vs Union of India, highlighting the invalidity of a GST detention notice based on mere suspicion. Learn how the court quashed the notice under Section 130 of the CGST Act.
ACIT Vs Him Urja Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) The assessee has also submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that as there was no exempt income earned by assessee during the relevant previous year, no disallowance under section 14A could be made. The assessee relied upon Judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of […]
In re State Examination Board (GST AAR Gujarat) The applicant has stated that the State Examination Board is a State Educational Board and are therefore covered under the above mentioned clause(iv) and would therefore be eligible for the exemption under Entry No.66(a) and 66(aa) of Notification No.12/2017-central Tax(Rate) dated 28.06.2017, as amended. In this regard, […]
The issue under consideration is whether the disallowance made by AO u/s 14A is justified in law? In view of the fact that no proper satisfaction was recorded, in our considered opinion, the Assessing Officer did not acquire any valid jurisdiction for computing disallowance u/s 14A.
Compulsory use of Standard Mark.- Goods or articles specified in the column (1) of the Table shall conform to the corresponding Indian Standard specified in column (2) of the said Table and shall bear the Standard Mark under a license from the Bureau as per Scheme-I of Schedule-II of Bureau of Indian Standards (Conformity Assessment) Regulations, 2018:
Chapter VIA of the of SEBI (Infrastructure Investment Trusts) Regulations, 2014 (InvIT Regulations) provides the framework for private placement of units by InvITs which are not eligible to be listed. In order to enable unlisted InvITs to raise further funds, it has been decided to provide a mechanism for raising of funds by unlisted InvITs through rights issue of units.
The issue under consideration is whether DRP is correct in considering the Liaison Office (LO) and Land Earth Station (‘LES’) constitutes a permanent establishment (PE) in India?
The issue under consideration is whether disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) made by AO forming an opinion that interest bearing funds were withdrawn from the firm being capital withdrawn by the partners and interest free advances is justified in law?
Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The assessee is a non-resident banking company which carries on the business of banking and other related activities through its branches in India in accordance with the provisions of Banking Regulation Act, 1949. During the year, Indian Permanent Establishment (in short PE) of the assessee bank in […]
Rajnesh Vs Neha & Anr. (Supreme Court) (i) The present Criminal Appeal arises out of an application for Interim Maintenance filed in a petition u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. by the Respondent-wife and minor son. The Respondent No.1-wife left the matrimonial home in January 2013, shortly after the birth of the son-Respondent No.2. On 02.09.2013, the wife […]
